Forum:Minifigure gallery texts
All the Minifigure galleries seem inconsistent of what we say. Sometimes we say in the variations section of minifigure pages something like "Version 1" and then sometimes something like "2002" and then sometimes something like "Luke Skywalker (Tatooine)" and sometimes something like "Luke Skywalker in Tatooine clothing", and then sometimes something like "Luke Skywalker (A Phantom Menace)" etc. All I'm saying that we are very inconsistent on what we say for the variants. What should we consistently say instead? 23:46, February 2, 2011 (UTC) * I think we need to start the split, and things like this will be sorted out easily- just give it the name of the respective article. 23:49, February 2, 2011 (UTC) Well, all minifigure articles and all sets that include minifigures. We always name the various types of minifigures differently, making them all inconsistent. There isn't a specific one. 23:50, February 2, 2011 (UTC) * People still remember the split idea :D ---It's a Kind of Madness--- Kingcjc 16:46, February 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't-sorry. What does this mean? Splitting each character into a page for each of it's different figures, the way that brickset does? 16:52, February 3, 2011 (UTC) Bricket has very long names. 22:15, February 3, 2011 (UTC) * Why should we have to copy the names from other databases? We can decide on the names ourselves to make them best suit us. 22:22, February 3, 2011 (UTC) * That's what I said, we can make up our own names. Can we choose names? 22:27, February 3, 2011 (UTC) ::I never said we should use brickset's, I just was asking if it was like that. We can't have a good and accurate system with making up names. 17:51, February 4, 2011 (UTC) Names A few ways names could be worked out: * Set/first set - E.g. Police Officer (7289). Only problem is, working out the first set if released at same time. * Number - E.g. Police Officer 17 or Police Officer (17). Problem - which one, which number? * Year - E.g. Police Officer (1987) or Police Officer 2 (1987). * Names/Time frames (Licensed only) - E.g. Anakin Skywalker (Podracer) and Anakin Skywalker (Jedi Knight) ---It's a Kind of Madness--- Kingcjc 17:11, February 6, 2011 (UTC) * I think where possible, the licensed themes should take the names from the video games since it's the closest we get to an official name. The others I'm not really sure about- I think the main problem is that you can run into minifigures being released in the same year or in the same set for the first time. Take the Space Police Officers for example, most of which were released in the same year, and most of the sets were released at the same time. Maybe a combination of a unique number and a year? Police Officer (1989, 1), Police Officer (1989, 2), Police Officer (1990, 2)? I don't know if that looks a bit weird though. But I think if we have a unique number alone, we'd have to have some sort of order for them, and if we go by a release date that'd be fine, but if we missed one, we'd have to move all the others forward one number, and doing that to potentially 50 or so would be very long, and then we'd have to fix hunreds of links to point to the correct figure as well. 22:39, February 6, 2011 (UTC) I think we should go with the first idea. That was, it's easier to tell what set it is. The only problem, is, of course, that many old figures were released in multiple sets. 00:33, February 7, 2011 (UTC) I believe it is time to break the variations of minifigures into separate articles, I've got some sort of System planned for it. The thing about breaking it to separate articles is that we will have to terminate all "background" sections, which I find annoying in the first place. Lego lord 01:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC) What's wrong with background? It tells the whole story of the minifigure? Would you rather that we had no info on what Johnny Thunder did in the LEGO World, or would you rather that we had that info? No we won't- eg- Clone Wars Anakin, give him a Clone Wars background, Ep1 Anakin, give him Ep1 background, etc. It will probably be shorter for most figs, but that isn't really a problem. Ok if I move this split stuff to a separate forum and put it in a sitenotice? It's about time we sorted this out once and for all. 22:27, February 14, 2011 (UTC) For licensed themes like Star Wars, it isn't really LEGO's background, it's a Star Wars background. This information is not really needed because the article is about the minifigure, not the character. Otherwise Anakin and Darth Vader would share the same article like how Wookieepedia has it. Lego lord 01:42, February 15, 2011 (UTC) ::I don't see why we shouldn't have the info. Really. 18:12, February 17, 2011 (UTC) :::Because, this information isn't about a background thought up by LEGO, it is thought up by the creator of the films, TV series, etc. Plus, these are minifigure articles, not character articles. Minifigures are just pieces, they don't have a character behind them. I would suggest making a separate article for the backgrounds such as for Johnny Thunder we can call the article "Background of Johnny Thunder", since a minifigure is just pieces. Lego lord 00:30, February 21, 2011 (UTC) ::::::There really is no point. It would just require lots of effort to accomplish very little-just to satisfy the wants of one user. And this is the wrong topic. 23:00, February 22, 2011 (UTC) :::::::I'd really be willing to accomplish very small things like this, it's quite easy. Lego lord 23:06, February 27, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::Per BF2- this is way off topic. This is about minifigure names. And people like backgrounds. The vote proved it. Can we please get back on topic here? 01:33, March 1, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::Sure thing. Lego lord 01:38, March 1, 2011 (UTC) : Just been thinking- when the gallery's used in sets, why don't we just give the most basic name, eg, "Luke Skywalker", and let the picture in the gallery do the talking? Although this doesn't really help much when the template's on a minifigure page listing variants... 01:53, March 1, 2011 (UTC) For the sets, I would definitely agree, but for the minifigure articles, I'd say we just don't need to show the names since LEGO never officially named each and every variation. Lego lord 01:55, March 1, 2011 (UTC) Voting Use the basic names, without (Tatooine), (1998), etc. # It's simple, and that is all that it really needs to have. Lego lord 21:39, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Make up new names # We have to have something to distinguish between them, and we can hardly have under "variants" in a minifigure infobox "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker", "Anakin Skywalker" for example. 01:35, March 12, 2011 (UTC) Comments *??? I don't really understand this vote... 01:16, March 11, 2011 (UTC) ::Sorry if that was confusing. ---- We're in the darkest hour 22:46, March 11, 2011 (UTC) :::Understand now? ---- We're in the darkest hour 01:34, March 12, 2011 (UTC) :::: Yeah, thanks :) 01:35, March 12, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Well, this was voting on whether or not we should say it in the minifigure gallery, not the minifigure infobox. I'm going to make another vote about the minifigure gallery. ---- We're in the darkest hour 01:38, March 12, 2011 (UTC) :::::: Well, same argument applies to the gallery. 01:45, March 12, 2011 (UTC) Voting for the minifigure gallery Leave it blank # Leaving the minifigure gallery blank looks better than giving names which are inconsistent. ---- We're in the darkest hour 01:42, March 12, 2011 (UTC) Make up new names # 01:45, March 12, 2011 (UTC) # 15:31, March 13, 2011 (UTC) Comments Do we mean names like "Clone Trooper" and "Policeman" here? --- You're in the Jungle Baby -- Kingcjc 21:15, March 13, 2011 (UTC) * If we are to make up new names, or leave it blank in the minifigure gallery on a minifigure article, not the set. ---- We're in the darkest hour 21:16, March 13, 2011 (UTC)